"Anything not explicitly right-wing will become left-wing in time."
I'd say it's the other way around. You need massive censorship to keep things left-wing.
Mods have to put in considerable effort to keep things left-wing (which is why mods are usually lefty activists). Free speech sites are right-leaning. It's heavily censored and curated sites that are left-leaning.
That's why the actual saying is "any organization that is not explicitly right-wing will become left-wing". The implication is that leftists will infiltrate and subvert any power structure that does not actively recognize leftists and take concrete steps to prevent their subversive behavior.
I see a lot of 4chan posts that are butthurt about anything right-wing. Making a pro-Trump thread is pretty much begging for an Internet fight. And usually there's at least one anti-right-wing thread at any given time.
But it's also one of the few places I know where it's almost never a total circlejerk.
A truly censorship-free place will indeed become right wing, but the O'Sullivan Law is talking about organizations and those are expected to have at least some extent of censorship.
Even with minimum censorship a place can be subverted by communists, while a place with no moderation will become right-wing the moment they leave it alone for just a short while.
As JBP says, hierarchies are in human nature, so right-wing politics can literally arise from nothing, while the left is born from decades of degenerate, fallacious philosophy and can only be sustained through heavy censorship.
Slippery slope isn't a fallacy. If you don't stand for that ideal, then you get a "well, this particular thing is bad, so we should probably ban it", then "well, if that precedent was set, we should probably ban this, too", until you get a Safe Space where any dissent or original idea is a bannable offense.
I'd say it's the other way around. You need massive censorship to keep things left-wing.
Mods have to put in considerable effort to keep things left-wing (which is why mods are usually lefty activists). Free speech sites are right-leaning. It's heavily censored and curated sites that are left-leaning.
Leftism dies without censorship.
That's why the actual saying is "any organization that is not explicitly right-wing will become left-wing". The implication is that leftists will infiltrate and subvert any power structure that does not actively recognize leftists and take concrete steps to prevent their subversive behavior.
That's the 4Chan corollary: any sufficiently free internet space will become right-winged.
I see a lot of 4chan posts that are butthurt about anything right-wing. Making a pro-Trump thread is pretty much begging for an Internet fight. And usually there's at least one anti-right-wing thread at any given time.
But it's also one of the few places I know where it's almost never a total circlejerk.
Is half-chan still considered free? I've haven't looked at it forever and there has been mountains of drama.
It's free-r, in the sense that China is freer than North Korea.
They are talking about different criteria.
A truly censorship-free place will indeed become right wing, but the O'Sullivan Law is talking about organizations and those are expected to have at least some extent of censorship.
Even with minimum censorship a place can be subverted by communists, while a place with no moderation will become right-wing the moment they leave it alone for just a short while.
As JBP says, hierarchies are in human nature, so right-wing politics can literally arise from nothing, while the left is born from decades of degenerate, fallacious philosophy and can only be sustained through heavy censorship.
Concrete free speech is explicitly right-wing.
Slippery slope isn't a fallacy. If you don't stand for that ideal, then you get a "well, this particular thing is bad, so we should probably ban it", then "well, if that precedent was set, we should probably ban this, too", until you get a Safe Space where any dissent or original idea is a bannable offense.
Well, you'd be wrong